For the past couple of years Jack Straw has been called on to defend British foreign policy from outraged attack far more often than he’s been called to spell out his values as foreign secretary.
The image of him hacking through a tangled detail of questions on the Today programme comes to mind first – usually sounding defensive, sometimes even pedantic.
At ease, though, he has a clear and simple vision of how the world is passing through a phase of enormous change that affects all our lives.
‘Human rights have gradually become part of international law, not least because of the leadership shown by the Prime Minister over Kosovo. There is now an acceptance of this new jurisprudence, that you can intervene in humanitarian circumstances. And that’s a major change.’
Jack Straw argues for an evolution, rather than revolution, in international law to cope with new threats to security and human rights. He is confident that the jurisprudence will develop on a case-by-case basis. And, realistically, it is hard to imagine China, the US, Russia and France all agreeing to an explicit remaking of the UN charter to intervene in developing threats and humanitarian crises. He is convinced that the old system will not do and has faith that a new one is gradually being laid down.
‘The UN charter is very good at dealing with the classic threat of one sovereign state to the territory of another. It was not able to deal with Kosovo. People forget this. The security council did not endorse the military intervention in advance, because Russia made it clear that it would veto it. But also because you could never argue that the mass killing, and the threat of even more, posed a threat to international security. Retrospectively it was endorsed. That’s one step.’
Kosovo is, of course, just one of the atrocities of the 1990s. Congo, Rwanda and too many others show up the inaction and sins of omission that characterised our response to that bloody time. But even those who supported the humanitarian grounds for war in Iraq fear that the discord caused in the international community, the domestic political outrage, and the tardiness of the reconstruction all mean that we do not now have the capacity to intervene elsewhere. By fixating on Saddam, have we given other dictators and other dangers a pass?
‘No. I think that the result of our action in Iraq has sensitised the whole world to problems of proliferation in a way that would never otherwise have happened and consequently there is progress, there to be seen – in respect of Iran, for example.’
The foreign secretary believes you have to pick your way towards a better world step by pragmatic step, dealing with crisis and creating precedents for future action. All this is achieved with allies. It is here that he most fears the consequences of a Tory foreign policy.
‘Diplomatic influence – the ability to persuade others to do things that they would not otherwise do – is intangible but its effects are real. Iran is a very good example. What I have been able to do required a great deal of discussion in private and building of confidences. If your approach to Europe is to say, as Michael Howard does, let’s pick and mix, you find that you get no traction at all. He had a very troubled relationship with fellow European home ministers and all sorts of things were not done. Then you end up in the kind of mess John Major got into. I also fear for our influence in the developing world – they weren’t famous for their commitment to aid programmes when they were in office.’
Straw repeatedly draws the links between diplomacy and doorstep concerns. Drugs, migration, trade, jobs: his political task is to communicate how vital Labour’s foreign policy is to these issues. ‘Matters which have a direct effect on our nation’s streets demand an international response,’ he says.
Of course, on the doorsteps of his own constituency of Blackburn Straw has to justify his constructive friendship with Israel and the Iraq war to a very large Muslim community. When asked if this is a problem, he looks surprised. It is not a problem to be shied from – but a conversation to be had.
‘I explain that Israel has a right to exist, that it is one of the few nations in the world founded by the United Nations and that we have to work toward finding some accommodation between those two countries and above all between the some 10 million people who live in Israel in the Occupied Territories. So I don’t find it that difficult.’
He describes having a permanent series of conversations in the town, large-scale meetings, surgeries – even standing in the centre of town, taking questions.
When asked about the BNP, which captured one council seat in Blackburn and is strong in the wider region, Jack Straw talks about persuading BNP voters point by point away from extremism.
‘You have to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of those who vote for the BNP are not racist. You have to deal with their concerns and not just slag people off.’ He describes the process of patiently exposing the BNP’s lies and distortions by research and reason. He has an abiding faith in trying to talk to people through the political process.
‘I don’t know in the end whether these things will work. What I do know is that in politics, there is a very close relationship between the effort you put in and the support you get back.’
Jack Straw’s enthusiasm for doorstep politics and the town meeting contrasts with his jokey unease at the splendour of his office. Far outstripping No 10 Downing Street, you could easily play a game of tennis in his private office – if you did not mind breaking countless priceless statues. He says that he pretends he is working in the Commons library when it gets overwhelming.
He brings up the risk of his role.
‘There is a great danger in a job like this that you become detached from your party and from your roots. I work really hard to avoid it. That’s why I continue with my regular pattern of visits to my constituency and my weekly visit to the supermarket. I am here to represent this country and its people and to do so as a Labour foreign secretary – you forget that at your peril.’
He talks about the political challenges of incumbency in the second term. In the first term the public was signed up to an obvious agenda of putting things right. Much of that work is now done. Later reforms are necessarily more cautious and incremental. As he says, though, crime is down, healthcare and schools are demonstrably, obviously, better. ‘One of the frustrating things is how people can just pocket the successes.’ He says Labour must fight to make sure people give it credit for its successes.
And what about that third term? What should Britain look like after more than ten years of Labour? ‘By comparison with 1997, dramatically different: more prosperous, more self-confident; better equipped to deal with an ever-changing future; better educated, healthier. And that’s for starters.’